This progressive blog sets forth the personal views of the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law on national events. Occasionally, the responses to his views or other interesting articles are also posted.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

As known by readers of these posts, I consider it rare for my views to meet approbation when first expressed. It usually takes months or years for agreement to arise, if then. People do resist logic and facts, you know.

Some of this sounds pretty arrogant, I suppose. But it’s the way I feel. (Paul Krugman occasionally expresses a similar feeling, as sometimes commented here.) I feel this way to the extent that, if my views meet immediate approval among the cognoscenti, I jokingly say that perhaps I should reassess my opinions.

I was therefore very surprised when yesterday, Tuesday, two major Washington figures expressed views very similar to ones posted here the day before, on Monday. Monday’s post questioned the wisdom of the position taken by both McCain and Obama that we should fight a larger war in Afghanistan. This seems to be a position Obama is repairing to in order to gain political cover for his desire to withdraw from Iraq, or perhaps to obtain middle of the road and other votes, or perhaps out of true belief, or perhaps out of some combination of these. But yesterday, on Tom Ashbrook’s On Point, both Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lawrence Wilkerson expressed opposition to a heavy additional militarization of our efforts in Afghanistan. Their positions seemed not greatly different from my own, although, in the part of the program that I listened to (I didn’t hear all of it), I don’t recollect them delving too deeply into reasons, especially some offered here on Monday. Maybe this is a failure of memory on my part, or maybe they elaborated during some part of the program I didn’t hear. Whatever the case, and without reiterating the reasons given in Monday’s post, it was very surprising to hear two Washington figures, at least one of whom is a Democrat, take a position similar to my own and contrary to Obama’s. It was so surprising that this current post was written to take notice of it.

As for Obama himself, he seems to be drinking the same Kool Aid that was drunk by, and destroyed the presidencies of, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush. He is spouting apocalyptic visions combined with a possible need for unilateral warmaking. In a Sunday, July 20th transcript of an interview with CBS News (which I read on Tuesday the 22nd), Obama says Afghanistan must be the “central front,” it is where “they can plan attacks” and “have sanctuary,” where they gather huge sums from the drug trade. He says we must “rebuild roads” and “provide electricity” and show people we are there “to stay over the long haul.” It is all very reminiscent of -- in parts identical to -- Johnson’s and Nixon’s statements about Nam, Nixon’s about Cambodia (a claimed sanctuary for planning and refitting), Bush II’s about Iraq. Without getting into reasons canvassed on Monday as to why this all seems doomed foolishness in Afghanistan, suffice to say here that statements made by Obama to CBS News would indicate he has learned nothing from the debacles in Indo China and Iraq. They are especially dumb for having been made by a guy who is quite smart (unlike Hillary Clinton or McCain). They illustrate that one courts disaster when one makes statements for political purposes regardless of their truth or accuracy (which I think a possibility here). If Obama, as President, were to really follow the prescriptions he gave CBS News, it would destroy his Presidency almost as surely as Nam and Iraq destroyed Johnson’s, Nixon’s and Bush II’s. Britain and Russia, both at the height of empire, met disaster in Afghanistan, and so would Obama in all probability. As Brzezinski said on Ashbrook’s program, one can create apocalyptic visions that lead one to disaster in an effort to ward off the envisioned apocalypse. (In Nam the apocalyptic vision was the domino theory, which is just a version of the lamentable, false lawyer’s logic which says if A, then necessarily B, if B, then necessarily C, if C, then necessarily D, etc., etc., until we supposedly will be fighting the commies in the streets of San Francisco.)

If, on the other hand, Obama retreats from his prescriptions when they come under attack -- attacks that could well occur when you consider that Washington insiders like Brzezinski and Wilkerson, already disagree with them -- he will be accused again of flip flopping. This could be especially harmful to him if he has to retreat before November 4th, since he already is being accused of being a flip flopper, of being someone who trims his sails to the political winds. He thus seems to have gotten himself into a trap, at least if the attack on his views comes before the election, a trap in which he must either continue with an apocalyptic position, or flip flop, or seek, not very convincingly, to deny what is plain on the face of the transcript.

The whole business reminds one of a story about FDR and, I think it was, Sam Rosenman, one of his major aides. Before an election, in a speech in Pittsburgh, FDR made some promise or other. After being elected (or reelected), FDR did the opposite of what he promised (like the first Bush raising taxes after saying “No new taxes”). Roosevelt began taking heat for his flip flop, so he asked Rosenman to take a look at what he had said in Pittsburgh in order to try to reconcile his later action with his earlier Pittsburgh statements. Rosenman read the Pittsburgh speech and reported back his conclusion. The only thing you can do, he told FDR, is to deny you were ever in Pittsburgh.

Just so. Obama has trapped himself. The only thing he can do to escape may be to deny he ever was interviewed by CBS News.*

* This posting represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel. If you wish to comment on the post, on the general topic of the post, or on the comments of others, you can, if you wish, post your comment on my website, VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com. All comments, of course, represent the views of their writers, not the views of Lawrence R. Velvel or of the Massachusetts School of Law. If you wish your comment to remain private, you can email me at Velvel@VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com.

VelvelOnNationalAffairs is now available as a podcast. To subscribe please visit VelvelOnNationalAffairs.com, and click on the link on the top left corner of the page. The podcasts can also be found on iTunes or at www.lrvelvel.libsyn.com

In addition, one hour long television book shows, shown on Comcast, on which Dean Velvel, interviews an author, one hour long television panel shows, also shown on Comcast, on which other MSL personnel interview experts about important subjects, conferences on historical and other important subjects held at MSL, presentations by authors who discuss their books at MSL, a radio program (What The Media Won’t Tell You) which is heard on the World Radio Network (which is on Sirrus and other outlets in the U.S.), and an MSL journal of important issues called The Long Term View, can all be accessed on the internet, including by video and audio. For TV shows go to: www.mslaw.edu/about_tv.htm; for book talks go to: www.notedauthors.com; for conferences go to: www.mslawevents.com; for The Long Term View go to: www.mslaw.edu/about­_LTV.htm; and for the radio program go to: www.velvelonmedia.com.

About Dean Velvel

Name:Lawrence
Velvel

Location:Andover, Massachusetts,
United States

Dean Velvel, an honors graduate of
the University of Michigan Law School, has practiced law in the public and private sectors,
and been a law professor. He is the author of the quartet Thine Alabaster Cities
Gleam. The books in the quartet are entitled: Misfits In America, Trail of
Tears, The Hopes and Fears of Future Years: Loss and Creation, and The Hopes
and Fears of Future Years: Defeat and Victory.

MSL's mission is to provide high quality, practical and affordable legal education to
deserving person who have been unfairly excluded from law schools. The School seeks to give
these persons access to the societal advancement that is available, in law and other fields,
to people with legal degrees. To accomplish its mission, MSL serves persons from working
class backgrounds, minorities, mid-life individuals who seek to change careers, and
immigrants. MSL also serves middle class people who increasingly have been shut out of legal
education. MSL gives individuals from all these groups a rigorous, useful, affordable legal
education so that they can improve their lives and better serve their communities.